Aligning monitoring of virus barriers in potable reuse with unit process treatment mechanisms and time scales: A critical review and research needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interest is growing in potable reuse in response to water scarcity and the desire for sustainable supplies. While potable reuse systems must control a variety of physical, chemical, and microbiological contaminants, human enteric viruses are particularly concerning and drive process performance objectives due to their often‐high occurrence in source waters, small size, potential resistance to treatment, and laborious methods to determine infectivity. This paper reviews the alignment of online monitoring practices with the mechanisms and time scales of the various barriers for enteric viruses. While there are numerous studies and reviews of individual barriers, no other review has been identified that covers operational monitoring of the entire potable reuse system. This paper also provides a critical assessment of the efficacy of current practices for operational and verification monitoring of the integrity of barriers to enteric viruses in potable reuse systems. The prevalence of human enteric viruses in wastewater and associated challenges of quantifying them through treatment are discussed within the risk management frameworks currently in use or under development for potable reuse systems. Monitoring approaches are then reviewed throughout the potable reuse water cycle. Current monitoring practices are compared with treatment process mechanisms and time scales, for the treatment barriers of biological wastewater treatment, membrane bioreactors, microfiltration/ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, ultraviolet irradiation/advanced oxidation, ozonation, granular media/biologically active filtration, and chlorination. Monitoring and pathogen removal mechanisms are also reviewed for both environmental and engineered buffers. Implications are then discussed for future areas of research in potable reuse.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".